Opinion
NO. 14-16-00216-CR
12-06-2016
RICHARD T. MARTIN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 9 Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2067135
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted appellant of driving with a suspended license. On March 3, 2016, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for 180 days in county jail. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on March 4, 2016.
On June 28, 2016, this court ordered a hearing to determine whether appellant desired to prosecute his appeal and if so, whether he was indigent and thus entitled to a free record and appointed counsel on appeal. On July 12, 2016, the trial court attempted to conduct the hearing. Although appellant appeared at the court on the day of the hearing, appellant could not be located once the hearing commenced. However, appellant left a piece of paper stating the trial court had no jurisdiction to administer his estate. The record of the hearing was filed in this court on July 20, 2016. No supplemental clerk's record containing the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law was filed.
On September 8, 2016, this court issued a continuing abatement order, directing the trial court to file its findings and conclusions. On November 16, 2016, the trial court filed a supplemental clerk's record, containing its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. According to this record, the trial court scheduled another abatement hearing on September 23, 2016, but appellant failed to appear. Court staff contacted appellant's bonding company in an effort to produce appellant for the hearing. The bonding company reported that appellant "cursed out the bonding company and told them that he had no intention of appearing in court and that this Court had no jurisdiction over him." Based on appellant's statements to the court on July 12, 2016, as well his statements to the bonding company, the trial court concluded that appellant has abandoned his appeal.
Appellant has not filed a written motion to withdraw the appeal or a written motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). However, based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the trial court, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a) in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 2.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Busby, and Wise.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).